Merrill Lynch’s 2001 guide, “How to read financial reports,”
does an admirable job orienting the amateur financial analyst as to where to
find those nebulous “intangible assets” we hear so much about in today’s
knowledge economy. They’re in the “assets”
section of the balance sheet, just between deferred charges and investment
securities (Merrill Lynch, 2001). Yet the guide’s description of what those
intangibles might include seems rather narrow. The guide mentions
patents, trademarks, and copyrights as well as the territorial rights that go
with some franchise agreements (Merill Lynch, 2001) – but
that’s it.
In another of this week’s readings, Christopher Allen (2002)
agrees that a company must disclose “non-financial factors and intangible
assets” (p. 210) to give investors a clear picture of how the company makes
money, but he does not tell us what those assets might be. How frustrating! As
a regular consumer of financial reports, I am keen to know what that line
item actually represents for today’s “typical” firm. Allen (2002) calls for
greater reporting uniformity between companies in this post-Enron era. It seems
to me that a necessary first step to achieving that uniformity is cleaning out the
cobwebs that shroud a company’s “intangibles.”
While our reading from The
Economist (Franklin, 2008) was
quite thorough in its discussion of one intangible asset, corporate social
responsibility, I thought it might be useful to turn to a scholarly article for
information about what else belongs in the intangibles column.
In “Disclosure of non-financial information in the annual
report: A management-team perspective,” Arvidsson (2011) acknowledges the
increasingly important role of intangible assets in assessing a firm’s
financial health, pointing to the growing “gap between companies’ market and
book value” (p. 277) as primary evidence. He echoes Allen’s (2002) concern that
financial reporting should be standardized as much as feasible (Arvidsson,
2011). To this end, Arvidsson (2011) surveyed investor relations managers (IRM)
to determine what types of non-financial information are most often reported
and what reasoning or incentives drive this reporting.
Arvidsson (2011) identified five categories of non-financial
information that belong in the modern company’s annual report. Ranked in
descending order of IRM focus, they are:
- Organizational assets – Information related to a firm’s processes/routines, quality performance, efficiency, technology, and corporate culture
- Human assets – Information about a firm’s executive leadership, management, and/or associates and their competencies, development programs, and incentive structure
- Relational assets (external structures) – Accounting of a firm’s customers, distributors, strategic alliances, and collaborative activities
- Research and development – Information on a company’s R&D activities, patents and trademarks, idea-generation, and product portfolio
- Corporate social responsibility and environmental assets – Accounting of a firm’s community activities, environmental policies, and other CSR initiatives (Arvidsson, 2011)
Arvidsson’s (2011) study emphasizes that companies should
not merely disclose these assets, but rather position intangibles in terms of
their role in the company’s business strategy. We encountered a similar message in our Porter and Kramer reading (2006), which calls on companies to approach CSR selectively and with strategy in mind.
I was surprised by the relatively low importance Arvidsson’s
(2011) subjects placed on CSR reporting
(Arvidsson was surprised, too, noting that the survey findings contradicted
those of some earlier studies, including his own). Like Porter and Kramer (2006), Arvidsson (2011) notes that increased stakeholder interest in CSR does not necessarily translate to increased importance from a management perspective. Nonetheless, I found this
more comprehensive list of what might be included in the “intangible assets”
portion of a financial statement provided a missing link in my comprehension of
the week’s topic.
References
Allen, C. E. (2002). Building mountains in a flat landscape:
Investor relations in the post-Enron era. Corporate
Communications, 7(4), 206-211.
Arvidsson, S. (2011). Disclosure of non-financial
information in the annual report: A management-team perspective. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 12(2),
277-300.
Franklin, D. (2008, January 19). Just good business: A
special report on corporate social responsibility. The Economist, pp. 1-14.
Merrill Lynch. (2000). How to read a financial report. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review.
Leslie -- This was something that puzzled me when I was reading the Merrill Lynch material. How do you put a price on intangible assets? And how do you find agreement on that value? Once upon a time I presided over a 501(c)3 nonprofit, and faced this dilemma when trying to value "in-kind contributions." How do you put a price on the hours of a volunteer's life, for instance, or the value of someone who provides voice talent? I wonder if these matters, so anecdotal in nature, even belong in a company's financial statements.
ReplyDeleteOr what if you're a successful nuclear medicine company that employs an elite group of scientists? If competitors can see that your intangible (specifically, human) assets are high and your resources/monetary assets are low, do you think that you'd be a more pronounced target for poachers or a stolen business model? As an investor, I'd love to see this type of information, but as a business leader, I'm not so sure.
DeleteLeslie, you make an interesting point that the information included in the financial reports could be expanded to include other areas. Do you think those categories you mentioned should be lumped into intangibles or could the company report that information elsewhere? Do you think if more organizations use CSR to create value it will become more important on the balance sheet or will it always take a back seat?
ReplyDeleteBrian,
ReplyDeleteThough I touched on it only briefly in my blog post, the article I reviewed addresses your concern in a compelling way. Investors have a tendency to want to know everything there is to learn about a company, whether or not it would actually be good for the company to disclose such information (Arvidsson, 2011). In this way, ronically, investors can end up working counter to their own interests!
Dr. Pade,
While I think that reasonable accounting of a firm's "intangibles" should be included in the annual report, the specific location of this information within the report seems less consequential. Still, I do agree with calls for greater consistency in financial reporting. With that in mind, I suggest intangibles be eliminated from the balance sheet and discussed, instead, in one of the first two sections of the annual report.
One good reason for investors to view intangible assets with a grain of salt is that many of these assets are controlled poorly, if at all, by the firm. Consider human relations. Often, when people leave a company, they take intellectual capital with them. Or consider relational assets. The coalitions that offer strategic advantages for member firms can easily disband or change alliances.
Leslie,
ReplyDeleteI am still torn on the subject of CSR. Conceptually I like the idea of the firm being responsible for its constituents and corporate environment (literally and figuratively). That being said if we rely on them to take a more active part in social issues we are also empowering them within those realms. I think that although there is significant CSR activity happening in the professional world, many actors still view it as a unnecessary or even financially inadvisable. This could result in a couple things, first they simply don't have anything to report (see my blog) or two they fear being too transparent may scare off some investors.